" As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law. "

GM, all you would have to do is review his job as Governor and see if what he says is true. But I grabbed that quote because I think he carefully worded it. What he did NOT say is that he would exclude his faith from any decision. He only said the doctrine would not supercede the law. I think this is the most balanced view out there.

When I hear a candidate say that they personally despise abortion, yet with so to support it in office, what does that say about their character? I would rather a candidate say that they don't mind it at all, and won't mind it in office either. At least that position would be an honest one. Anyway, Mitt's views are straight with me. I don't think Mormonism is true, but I respect what he said.

I can respect what he said as well, Mormons give me a headache, and I'm still not sure that I'm comfortable with the idea of a Mormon President, but based on that speech, if he will back it up, he may be a better shot than Guliani.

" As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law. "

GM, all you would have to do is review his job as Governor and see if what he says is true. But I grabbed that quote because I think he carefully worded it. What he did NOT say is that he would exclude his faith from any decision. He only said the doctrine would not supercede the law. I think this is the most balanced view out there.

When I hear a candidate say that they personally despise abortion, yet with so to support it in office, what does that say about their character? I would rather a candidate say that they don't mind it at all, and won't mind it in office either. At least that position would be an honest one. Anyway, Mitt's views are straight with me. I don't think Mormonism is true, but I respect what he said.

Who in their right mind would not have their personal beliefs inject some influence upon their actions? I think he's just being honest that he knows the law of the office comes first but his character and views are in there as well.

An imaginary person can backup their extraordinarily ridiculous claims?

With all due respect, anyone who says Jesus did not exist is a moron, period. This person would have to throw all ALL human history that they were not physically present to view, and they would never be able to tell that story because apparently eye witnessed recoreded accounts are worthless, even from people who die to back up what they said and did.

With all due respect, anyone who says Jesus did not exist is a moron, period. This person would have to throw all ALL human history that they were not physically present to view, and they would never be able to tell that story because apparently eye witnessed recoreded accounts are worthless, even from people who die to back up what they said and did.

No, you're talking about God's son Christ vs Jesus of Bethlehem. The man Jesus undoubtedly existed. I question whether he was the son of God and performed the miracles as they have been told. Wondrous claims told in the third person after the fact.

This will be my last off topic post in this thread. Mormons also say that God exists, but they throw the Joseph Smith mixer in there. You said imaginary PERSON, not imaginary God. Your argument should be based on Joseph Smith vs. Jesus Christ (the men who walked the Earth and claimed God representation). In that case, there is no comparison, at all, not even a little. This is NOT an argument that could go either way. Lets drop it.

No, you're talking about God's son Christ vs Jesus of Bethlehem. The man Jesus undoubtedly existed. I question whether he was the son of God and performed the miracles as they have been told. Wondrous claims told in the third person after the fact.

You would do well to heed the warnings of first hand accounts of eyewitnesses who were there and lived with Him for three years.
I Peter Chapter 1
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[b] 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.